To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

733
provisions of the same, have had the same under consideration,
and a majority of said committee have directed me to report the
same back to this House and recommend its indefinite postpone-ment.
Mr. Studabaker from the committee on the judiciary, made the
following minority report
:
Mil. Speaker :
The undersigned members of the judiciary committee, respect-fully
submit to the House of Representatives their reasons for dis-senting
from the-decision of a majority of said committee, in re-lation
to the report just made on House bill No. 96, a bill forbid-ding
persons holding office in any ol the banking institutions, to
hold office or to disch.irge the duties of any office or appointment
in the Slate Bank of Indiana, or in any of its branches, and pre-scribing
the penalty for violating the provisions of the same ; with
the recommendation to indefinitely postpone the same.
It will be remembered by the House, that ihis i^ill came from
the committee on banks with a favorable recommendation, which
was concurred in by the House.
That being the case, the undersigned did not so much consider
it their duty to enquire into the propriety of the measure, as to
ascertain whether there were any constitutional objections to the
bill proposed, and with this view the undersigned submit their
reasons for believing that the legislature has unquestionably the
right to pass the bill under consideration, as well as their confi-dence
in the propriety of so doing.
To arrive at a correct conclusion, it will be necessary to refer
t(» the action of the legislature in previous years. What has been
the policy of the State heretofore, and in what manner has she
guarded and protected her interest in the State bank of Indiana?
Let an examination be made of the original charter passed in
1S34, and it will be seen with what jealous care the law forbid
the ofii.cers of the bank from holding other offices likely to divert
their attention or interest from the institution under their care.
And the first law not being sufficient, in 1^37 and 1S42, passed
others, as with a view to cover all omissions, and separate, if pos-siole,
all other monied inutitutions from the bank.
In continuation of that policy, we consider that the bank com-mittee
wisely recommended that the present legislature should
pass a law forbidding making it illegal and inexpedient for the offi-cers
of the new State Bank, in which the State has no interest,
to hold the offices and direct the disposition of the funds and af-fairs
of the old State Bank, in which the State has some two mil-lions
of money.
Should it be to the interest of the new State Bank to use the
funds of the old contrary to law, have tl.ey not the power, may

733
provisions of the same, have had the same under consideration,
and a majority of said committee have directed me to report the
same back to this House and recommend its indefinite postpone-ment.
Mr. Studabaker from the committee on the judiciary, made the
following minority report
:
Mil. Speaker :
The undersigned members of the judiciary committee, respect-fully
submit to the House of Representatives their reasons for dis-senting
from the-decision of a majority of said committee, in re-lation
to the report just made on House bill No. 96, a bill forbid-ding
persons holding office in any ol the banking institutions, to
hold office or to disch.irge the duties of any office or appointment
in the Slate Bank of Indiana, or in any of its branches, and pre-scribing
the penalty for violating the provisions of the same ; with
the recommendation to indefinitely postpone the same.
It will be remembered by the House, that ihis i^ill came from
the committee on banks with a favorable recommendation, which
was concurred in by the House.
That being the case, the undersigned did not so much consider
it their duty to enquire into the propriety of the measure, as to
ascertain whether there were any constitutional objections to the
bill proposed, and with this view the undersigned submit their
reasons for believing that the legislature has unquestionably the
right to pass the bill under consideration, as well as their confi-dence
in the propriety of so doing.
To arrive at a correct conclusion, it will be necessary to refer
t(» the action of the legislature in previous years. What has been
the policy of the State heretofore, and in what manner has she
guarded and protected her interest in the State bank of Indiana?
Let an examination be made of the original charter passed in
1S34, and it will be seen with what jealous care the law forbid
the ofii.cers of the bank from holding other offices likely to divert
their attention or interest from the institution under their care.
And the first law not being sufficient, in 1^37 and 1S42, passed
others, as with a view to cover all omissions, and separate, if pos-siole,
all other monied inutitutions from the bank.
In continuation of that policy, we consider that the bank com-mittee
wisely recommended that the present legislature should
pass a law forbidding making it illegal and inexpedient for the offi-cers
of the new State Bank, in which the State has no interest,
to hold the offices and direct the disposition of the funds and af-fairs
of the old State Bank, in which the State has some two mil-lions
of money.
Should it be to the interest of the new State Bank to use the
funds of the old contrary to law, have tl.ey not the power, may